If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Lanie, you have to learn that there is a distinct difference between organized, peaceful protest......and disorganized, violent mob rule.

She never will. That would require Bridget to actually BE HERE for the start of a discussion. Instead in typical swoop and poop fashion she comes in at the tail end of a conversation taht hasn't been commented onin awhile and posts her long winded innane diatribes...then gets pissy and moody when we correct and disect her wrong headed Libtard version of "thought".

Ody, I don't recall even seeing your posts last night, so I wasn't addressing you. If somebody is getting violent, then yes, it provokes the police. Some of these people were saying the actions would have been justified just for "not following instructions."

Well, if you fail to follow the instructions of the police, you do tend to get what you pay for.

Originally Posted by Lanie

Well, they did in fact occupy property. When somebody did a "sit in," they occupied the restaurant or other place for "whites only." They were not legally permitted to be there, so they were arrested.

Yes, but they weren't "occupying" the property in order to deny the owners the use of it, they were asking for the same service as whites, and they never resisted arrest.

Originally Posted by Lanie

When they advocated boycotting the bus system, the idea was to hurt them financially. That's what some here want to happen to the bigger banks. Imagine this. You have some pushy sales person insisting you can afford a loan on a house, and it turns out you really can't. They knew this the entire time. Instead of trying to renegotiate the monthly payment, they get the government to bail them out and they sell the house for let's say two thousand dollars. Don't you think that's bullcrap? Don't you think some of the Occupy protesters have a point? I personally knew a guy who got told that because his late aunt owed money to a nursing home, he'd have to come up with that money or they'd take the house she left him. Well, he couldn't get the money at first, but he finally got it through a bank loan. By then, they wouldn't accept it. They sold his house for like a thousand dollars. They knew they could get away with it because they'd be bailed out. Fortunately, the other person decided they didn't want the house so he got his house back with that money, but you see my point? Some institutions need to be hit where it hurts (the wallet) so they'll stop mistreating people so much.

Boycotts are the exact opposite of occupation, in that the boycotters refuse to patronize the service or business in question. In doing so, they made the point that the bus company had to treat its customers as equals, and that they would not patronize the buses until the policy changed. The OWS crowd isn't demanding boycotts or disinvestment, they're demanding that government criminalize banking procedures that it imposed in the first place. The reason that we had a subprime mortgage mess in the first place is that the feds accused banks that didn't lend in minority areas of racial bias, without looking at the risk factors in the loans. Instead, they passed legislation that penalyzed banks that didn't make a certain percentage of loans with higher risk factors and made Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the guarantor of those loans, while socializing the risk of the loans by allowing the banks to issue derivatives against them. It was a massive Ponzi scheme, caused by government malfeasance and manipulation of markets.

Originally Posted by Lanie

BTW, I actually expect somebody to come in justifying the above paragraph.

If you mean that they will justify the bank's actions, I'd have to know a lot more about the situation before I commented.

Originally Posted by Lanie

I'll agree he is a turncoat. I guess there is a reason why he sees the war differently. He can object to the war without having a website about hating the marine corps. My objection was the idea that he deserved what happened to him because of the hateful things he said about marines. That's what somebody in this thread said. I don't agree with that. Now, if the guy was stupid enough to say that to the faces of some marines, I'd have more sympathy if that marine beat him senseless.

I don't care how he sees the war. His site isn't called "ihatethewar.com", it's "ihatethemarinecorps.com." Spitting on the uniform that he once wore is what makes him an icon to Wei, and a lowlife to the rest of us. Do I think that he deserved to be hit by a tear gas canister for being a turncoat? No, although I'm probably not going to lose much sleep over it (but I would like the VA to look at whether his conduct invalidates any of his benefits). However, refusing to leave a violent protest, flinging paint, bottles and rocks at the cops and otherwise being a violent, ignorant tool is pretty much demanding bodily harm, and he got what he demanded.

Originally Posted by Lanie

And Republicans often have no problem with the government assistance so long as it's for the rich, see above.

Some Republicans don't, but Democrats are far more likely to play the crony capitalism game. Solyndria was about putting taxpayer money into a corporation that was owned by Obama supporters, basically funnelling money to his cronies. LightSpeed was a similar scandal, except that it also involved risks to National Security. The auto bailout was a vast income transfer from the boond holders at GM and Chrysler to the unions, and Obamacare has seen similar sweetheart deals through the selective approval of waivers for connected companies and organizations. The Clintons, BTW, were just as bad, going after Microsoft on behalf of Sun Microsystems, which had been a huge Clinton contributor. I stand by my assertion that Democrats bite the had that feeds them.